Ted Nugent pleads guilty in illegal Alaska bear kill

I think the moral of the story here is don't jump to conclusions and call people "scumbags" if they do no fit into an exact profile you have of them. Ted Nugent does more for conservation of wildlife and wildlife areas than the Sierra Club ever thought about doing. If you have checked into Mr. Nugent you would see that he and his family do not eat the typical commercially processed foods that most of us eat. They eat animals the family has harvested on their land in Texas, Michigan or on hunts for their tv shows. Likewise none of the Nugents are fat and out of shape. Ted is an inspiration to many of us for his unabashed 2nd Amendment beliefs, for his hunting skills, and for his conservative political beliefs that he pushes in front of the media every chance he gets. To come onto this board and make a blanket statement about an icon in many of our eyes due to ignorance is simply not going to be well received.
Another statement about "sport hunting." I personally do no have a problem with someone hunting for the love of the chase, but while doing so a responsible hunter must stay within local, state and federal laws. We must be good caretakers of the resources we have, not like buffalo hunters in the 1800's slaughtering millions and just taking the hides. It is our duty to be stewards of the land and it's resources. That being said I don't always eat what I kill. That big 400+ pound Russian Boar a few years back, we skinned and cleaned it, and found somebody to give the carcass to, by after trying it they fed it to their dogs, it was so tough it was not fit to eat.
Blanket statements here will be met with resistance. The members of this board are not the typical redneck or ARF members. So many in this group, we have known each other for years, we have shared heartbreaking loss together, and on the flip side highs that would surpass Mt. Everest. Many of the members here are as close as family, we have broken bread together, and shared good times and bad. We have a solid group of professionals, thinkers who ask first before we shoot. So this is not the place to go off half cocked, or someone will call you out.

 

Enjoying your Pink Slime? Not all of us are willing to eat whatever they're willing to sell in the grocery stores.

Glad to see you've come around in your thinking. Of course, your opinions on hunting & killing are valid. They didn't coincide with the opinions of others here and now both sides have been presented. It's great that you were willing to listen & learn a few things.

As somebody else already mentioned the most reprehensible notion you espoused in this whole thread was the 'to each according to their need' bit. I know you didn't state it that way precisely but you still used a persons lack of need to try and justify curtailing that persons chosen activity without knowing hardly any of the facts. I'm not here to bust your chops. I'm trying to help you see how you might have raised the ire of others. I just hope when commenting you'll look at the bigger picture; maybe roll an idea around and look at it from as many sides as possible. Looks like you're already starting to see so I just wanted to toss my .02 in and smack you soundly about the noggin a little too

No harm intended!

Byte

 

Hey Lukek, how many steaks do you and yours eat a year? I have a very good job and can afford whatever I want in the grocery store. All the same every year from Nov. thru Jan. I'm out trying to bring home venison, turkey, rabbit, and quail for the freezer. Does this mean I should rot in h**l. Get with the program. We all kill to live, some just do it personally.

 

All i have said, is that killing for the sake of killing is wrong and those that do it are scumbags as far as im concerned, ive come across lots of people who go out, kill and then do not harvest or donate, they just leave it there under the pretense of 'feeding another wild creature'

Seems i got nugent pegged all wrong, my bad, im man enough to admit being wrong when i am. If some hunt to eat, cool, but to hunt just for the enjoyment of the kill, no, sorry, i dont think thats right and no one will change my mind on that, let me repeat that just incase some of you get the wrong idea again, hunting for a food scource is fine by me or if your livelyhood and family are threatened but to hunt purely for the experience of killing i think is wrong.

End of my posts on this matter, ive learnt some things i didnt know before and cemented some of my opinions.

 

If those are your beliefs, you started out pretty wrong for your first post on a new forum. Having said that, most here are pretty forgiving of fools (I'm not, but you know that from my PMs), so you might get along all right if you can manage to restrain yourself.

 

Probably not safe to preach here unless you're a chaplain!

It's refreshing to see another contradictarian on the site, willing to dodge brickbats to defend their own value judgements. It's a fairly lonely position to hold here on some issues. I think it's just that some folk's feathers tend to be ruffled by newbies whose perceived notions are as doctrinaire as their own opposing value judgements.

As to the ethical rightness or wrongness of killing animals for want (pleasure), rather than for killing animals out of need (survival, sustenance, economic benefit etc)...that is often a matter of context, rather than some absolute value. For instance, killing feral animals that destroy habitat, and lead to the die off of native species is often encouraged and rewarded, with the carcasses often left to rot (minus bounty evidence), whether or not the hunters "enjoy" the process of such killing being irrelevant to the act of killing itself.

I suspect that relatively few hunters will get some kind of enjoyment in killing something soleley for the sake of killing (though undoubtedly there are some who hunt for that reason alone), but it is probably more often the case of pitting their tracking, hunting, marksmanship and fieldcraft skills against live animal prey / predators. Even among hunters, indiscriminate killing contrary to commonly held hunting codes of conduct will bring disapproval and derision upon those who cross the line in breaking those rules.

There is nothing wrong in holding to your own hunting ethic, and i don't think anyone would deny your right to apply that belief to yourself and your own hunting decisions...where things get a little sticky is when one is perceived criticising those for holding beliefs contrary to your own, instead of using evidence based argument to challenge the beliefs themselves.

If one is a temperance pledge promoter, it probably won't win much positive response by going into a public house and complaining about the evils of drink to the publican and the drinking patrons, nor will describing non temperance drinkers as being scumbags (even if it were actually the case).

 

As for the Nuge, it didn't take the Feds long to dig up something for punish him for speaking ill of the chosen one, did it?

edited by melbo
See #1
http://www.survivalmonkey.com/forum...-survivalmonkey-com-site-rules.html#post39790

 

Ignorantia juris non excusat

</p>

Ignorantia juris non excusat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

That would be okay for a reasonable government, however according to the US Government Printing Office, the TAX CODE ALONE is 13,458 pages long.

Sure, we should all just memorize that and the rest of the law because ignorance of the law is no excuse. It's that kind of tripe that makes you laughable.

 

Ted Nugent is an idiot, having said that, hunting for sport still provides the only real impetus to financially sustain our wildlife; tree huggers don't give much money towards wildlife conservation.

 

RukeK, you sound rike real dumdum ha hA. odgrock, you know that he who says it first, is....
Prease be nice or i spam all of your emails which berong to mine.

Now that we fix all dum dums problems, who wants to buy fake iphone?

 

"...the law is a ass..."

The Law may be a ass, but it's best to know the nature of the beast, lest an ignorance of it gets ye kicked in the bollocks.

http://www.bartleby.com/73/1002.html

I merely point out that that was the legal principle that prevented Nugent from making a "well that was such an obscure regulation that I didn't know I was breaking it", defence. There are some very limited grounds for making a successful "ignorance of the law" defence (outlined in the Wikipedia linked webpage), but the principle of Ignorantia juris non excusat
is an ancient one and has been applied to legal proceedings by tyrannies and by democracies alike. As you will notice...both of you...I made no comment as to whether the application of the principle was fair...or unfair...you leaped to a particular conclusion with that regard on your own account. Nor did I make any comment as to the motivations for launching a prosecution against Nugent, be they fair or unfair. It should be noted that ignorance of the law is no impediment to claiming it as a justification in the court of internet public opinion.

Quigley:
your emoticon may be holding a plackard that says lies...but the gesture is rather meaningless and hollow. I did not invent the principle,
Ignorantia juris non excusat,and although Nugent has the right to complain as loud as he likes that he was unfairly prosecuted with an obscure regulation; at the end of the day, it was a valid (if a perhaps unfair) law, he pleaded guilty to breaking it, and paid the penalty for doing so. Whether the regulation / law itself is a bad one is a matter for electors to decide upon, and do what they have the democratic power to do in changing it. Until then, it would be wise for hunters to take note of regulations pertaining to hunting on Federal land where they may be somewhat different to the regulations pertaining to non Federal land.

Pyrrhus:

(1) The principle, Ignorantia juris non excusat applies to the laws administered by governments and regulatory bodies regardless of whether such regulatory bodies are reasonable or unreasonable, whether dictatorial or democratic, whether fair or unfair. The governed don't get to pick and choose which laws they can claim a defence of "ignorance of the law". To ignore that fact and pretend that it doesn't apply to oneself, is to fly in the face of reality.

(2) That is the reason why tax accountants and lawyers are employed, as well as other methods of due diligence. Or, one could emigrate to a jurisdiction where the tax laws are more minimalist.

(3) I do believe that you are beginning to get the idea, though relatively few people are likely to need to do so to the extent that you suggest.

(4) What tripe??? I merely pointed out what is...not what should be, not what ought be...but what is! If you were to break the law, and try an "ignorance of the law defence", then you're welcome to see just how far you get with it. (though your counsel will most likely advise against the futility of doing so) Just make sure that it is not your only defence...because, otherwise, you may just be screwed.

 

Wish I hadn't watched this QS. Its too early in the morning for me to be getting my blood pressure jacked up & getting pissed off. Thank God Uncle Ted has nearly enough $$$ to fight off these barbarian Liberals trying to pull his castle's walls down around him. When TSHTF Uncle Ted will prolly become Colonel Ted or General Ted an his army will be MASSIVE!!!

 

April 19, a female scooter rider killed a man by squeezing his testicles for the packing dispute, in Haikou City, Hainan Province.
It was learned, the woman, 41 years old, rode on her scooter to an elementary school in Meilan District, Haikou City to pick up her child that day. When she wanted to pack her scooter in front of a shop, she was rejected by the shop owner, a 42-year-old male.
The two parties soon fell into a quarrel, and then the physical confrontation. The furious woman called up her husband and brother to come help her, which resulted in a more violent fist fight.
During the fight, the middle aged woman manged to grab the man’s testicles, and squeezed them till he finally collapsed on the ground.
The man was immediately rushed to hospital, but unfortunately died there despite of efforts.

​

 

I thought that my talents were under appreciated...

I thought that my talents were under appreciated...but I appreciate your recognition that I am truly amazing! : )

1. Where did I say that he had used Ignorantia juris non excusat as a defence in his legal proceedings?
2. Pleading guilty means that proceedings don't continue to the defendant offering a defence against conviction,(that is self evident is it not?) though he may be entitled to have the matter of the law's obscurity being taken into account as a mitigating factor when sentencing is being considered. Did I say that he hadn't pled guilty? I'm surprised that Nugent didn't make a No Contest pleading, rather than guilty, unless admitting guilt was part of some kind of plea bargain or he felt that there was some kind of advantage to pleading guilty rather than 'no contest'.

("... He was unaware of the law but he did violate it..." = "...it was a valid (if a perhaps unfair law)..."), ( "...he pled guilty,..."= "...he pleaded guilty to breaking it,...") ( "...made restitution, and expressed his remorse..." = "...and paid the penalty for doing so..." )
I see that we are essentially in agreement on these points, even if expressed slightly differently.

3. Indeed he did so in the film clip interview....Did I say that he could not plead his case in the court of public opinion?? I did point out that....

4. That is very noble of him, though his interview videoclip tends to undrcut the spirit of the PSA penalty. He has merely used the whole issue as a part of his ideological ranting repertoir....it's probably the big bad government equivalent of throwing Brer Rabbit into the briar patch. The whole issue has merely made a martyr of him and has only served to increase his right wing / conservative stocks.

As I have pointed out.."the law is a ass"...and sometimes the cost of securing a conviction does more harm to a government that enforces laws that are unjust, oppressive or just plain stupid than by not doing so...enough folks a couple of hundred years ago came to that very same conclusion and evicted the lawmakers that offended such public sensibilities.

5. Strange as it may seem, it wasn't necessary for me to resort to Roget's or any other thesaurus. My vocabulary is extensive enough not to need it very often. I included the Wikipedia link for those who may like to know a little more about that aspect of the law. I'll take your suggestions as seriously as you take mine, but I thank you for the solicitously kind thought. ; )

Regards, from Your Amazingness,

Chelloveck ; )